If a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Who are the intended readers of Mrss. Ficktion and Bard's posts to nowhere?

It's one thing to dialogue, quite another to jump from unsolicited comment to the next. Do these guys think the echo in a tunnel is a conversation?_________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

Romney is the one who brought up Big Bird....
by addressing a $16 trillion debt by saying he'll cut an $8 million subsidy = making a big election about small things.

More to the point....

Romney said that he'd focus on the $8M subsidy to public broadcasting instead of focusing on the egregious behavior on Wall Street that caused (and continues to cause) so much of our financial problems.

Obama quipped that Romney was concerned more about "Sesame Street than Wall Street."

By continuing to deflect focus from the thieves on Wall Street, Romney's protecting his own kind, the 1%.

That excuse could apply to thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of federal expenditures, many of them much larger. That adds up. Besides, PBS was established to penetrate the hinterlands, not flood the cities where its present emphasis is.

This is a perfect example of why Romney has been too smart to list his target cuts; every one will be demagogued beyond belief in a deliberate attempt to distract stupid and ignorant voters from the real issues. Which is more important to the free world: funding Sandra's Flucking obsession, or the impending global fiscal collapse? Protecting U.S. soil and officials (his oath) at our embassies or attending celebrity galas? Al Qaeda or Big Bird? Netanyahu or Beyonce? Issuing his constitutionally mandated federal budget proposal (hint: he has refused his party's demands that he comply), or claiming Romney has issued no plan for jobs and economic growth (Google it; it runs 87 pages)? Yet in every pair, where has the Panderer in Chief's sole emphasis been?

The election should be about Republican policies that led to the crash, and if reinstated will lead to more concentration of wealth--not about Big Bird. Here, courtesy of Michael Greenberger, professor at the University of Maryland school of law, are some of the particulars.

--The financial meltdown caused the loss of $19 trillion of household wealth, 8.7 million jobs, and 6.3 million more Americans slipping below the poverty line.

--The Republicans in Congress, and the righties on this forum, have fought and complained about the modest re-regulation of the financial industry in the Dodd-Frank law. For a few particulars, that law provided the legal authority for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulated the derivatives market. That was, of course, the market that brought down the world economy. Phil Gramm http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/g/phil_gramm/index.html was the Republican who drafted the legislation deregulating the financial industry; that legislation specifically blocked regulation of the emerging financial instruments like derivatives.

I find it beyond irony and well into ignorance that the wing nuts from the right lament about the US debt, which is about the same as the wealth loss from de-regulation, and the imminent collapse of the world economy without doing any root cause analysis to see what caused the collapse. The Republicans were virtually unanimous in trying to block both the initial legislation, and then to prevent any funding for implementing the regulations. Meet the new boss-same as the old boss. Wasn't the Tea Party supposed to be opposed to this kind of shenanigans? Oh, that's right, funding courtesy of Tom Delay and Clarence Thomas' wife.

Talking of shenanigans, the White House has once again decided to ignore an inconvenient law. Defense contractors have been told not to issue layoff notices ahead of the election. These layoff notices were to be issued November 1......60 days in advance of January 1 defense spending cuts, and, inconveniently, just before the election. The notices are required by law to protect the interests of employees. Apparently, the interests of employees and adherence to the law come a poor second to the continued employment of the President. However, the picture is not all bleak. The affected companies have been assured by the White House that any costs they incur in defending actions against them by employees for failing to comply with the law will be reimbursed.......by the taxpayer. Another cost cutting move.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum